Robinson v Kilvert demonstrated that abnormal sensitivity of a property is a consideration in what aspect of nuisance?

In Robinson v Kilvert, the case highlights how the abnormal sensitivity of a property relates to evaluating the nature of a nuisance. The essence of the ruling is that not all interferences with the use and enjoyment of property constitute a nuisance; the nature and context of the interference are critical.

In this case, the claimant's premises were particularly sensitive to heat due to the nature of their business. The court recognized that what may be a minor annoyance or interference for most properties could be deemed an actionable nuisance for properties with an unusual sensitivity. Therefore, the determination of whether the interference qualifies as a nuisance hinges on understanding the unique characteristics of the affected property. This case illustrates that the specific activities conducted on the land and their sensitivity influence how the law assesses whether the interference rises to the level of a legal nuisance.

This aspect does not solely focus on establishing liability, as the abnormal sensitivity does not automatically make the defendant liable for nuisance. It also does not purely relate to the location of the property or the severity of the interference without understanding the context and nature of the activities involved. Thus, the emphasis placed on the specific characteristics of the property reinforces the importance of evaluating the nature of a nuisance in light of those unique sensitivities.